So where does his incredulity lead you?
Polkington has just indicated that the likelihood of any particular reality (removed in space and time from that point), if someone was "aiming", would be monstrously improbable. However, if nobody was "aiming", then there is no such need for disbelief. Yes, if this was an INTENDED target then it would be an amazing "aim" from a cypher in time and space...but assuming intent simply begs the question. So let us not assume intent, ok?
IF one DID intend such a "hit" (whether earth, mars, the mouse under the porch, or the pebble in the ear of a dinosaur)...what is the likelihood? There is nothing even remotely resembling such an ability in our world, is there? To even imagine someone doing that, you need to go to what can ONLY be imagined--so far as anyone knows. This only takes it further and further away from probability. So let us properly interpret the incredulity expressed by Polkington. He is right to be incredulous, if he is assuming an exact and successfully fulfilled intent. But assuming it is not an argument. Otherwise, we need not suspend our belief.
If incredulity corresponds to probability, then Polkington has just argued (unintentionaly) against an "aimer".
Personally, I think it is rather silly to say: Do you know how improbable it is that that hurricane intentionally deposited that grain of dust right HERE...billions of years later? Yes...very improbable, indeed. Perhaps, then...Will or Intention is a less than satisfactory means of accounting for it?
In other words, it is specious to gasp and say, "this could not possibly have been planned--Oh, my God! Oh, my God! Therefore--Oh, my God--It MUST have been planned! Free lunch, indeed. |
